FOIL: COVID Vaccine Redistribution Communications (New York State Psychiatric Institute)

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law, I hereby request the following records:

Any and all emails to or from the following email address since 1/1/2018:

CovidVaccineRedistribution@health.ny.gov

Including any attachments or related forms transmitted as attachments or embedded in responsive email messages.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Jackson Parker

I am writing to appeal the denial of my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, received by your office on May 1, 2023, and subsequently denied on June 1, 2023, and August 8, 2023. The denial letters cited Public Officers’ Law § 89(3) and asserted that the request was not “reasonably described.”

I respectfully disagree with this determination and provide the following legal arguments to support my appeal:

1. Reasonably Described Request: My request was specific to COVID vaccine redistribution communications within the New York State Psychiatric Institute. It was not a broad or vague request that would require a review of thousands of unrelated records.
2. Inapplicability of Cited AOs and Cases:
• FOIL-AO-18949 and FOIL-AO-18863: These AOs concern requests for ‘all’ records without limitation. My request was specific to a particular subject matter and did not include a broad search term that would produce thousands of unrelated records.
• Fisher & Fisher v. Davison, 1988 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 876: This case involved an enormous administrative burden that interfered with day-to-day operations. My request is not comparable, as it is focused on a specific topic and does not require an exhaustive search of unrelated documents.
3. Precedent of Compliance: Other agencies have complied with similar requests, demonstrating that the request does not “transcend a normal or routine request.” The specific nature of my request does not align with the broad and burdensome requests described in the cited AOs and case.
4. Detailed Explanation Requirement: The denial letters did not provide sufficient detail to justify the denial, as required by Matter of Markowitz v. Serio and Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Department.
5. Request for Certification of Diligent Search: In accordance with FOIL, I kindly request a certification that a diligent search has occurred, detailing the steps taken to locate the requested records. This certification will provide assurance that the agency has made a good faith effort to comply with the request.

I kindly request that you review my appeal and provide access to the requested records in accordance with the principles of transparency, reasonableness, and specificity as established in New York’s FOIL case law.